Remember that academic conspiracy that Scott Wolter claimed was working against him? Well, according to a new interview with Wolter it extends to the very heart of Wikipedia, which he and fellow alternative historian Richard Thornton say has been systematically edited to discredit him. Before we begin let me state up front that I have nothing to do with any of the alleged editing.

Wolter told Richard Thornton, writing as a columnist on Examiner.com, that he has demanded that Wikipedia remove its biography of him because too many people had inserted false or misleading claims into the biography. He claims that Wikipedia failed to act upon his request, and he claims that an editor named Doug Weller edited or removed articles Wolter authored for Wikipedia about controversial artifacts. As of this writing, there is no Scott Wolter Wikipedia page, and I can’t recall ever having seen one. America Unearthed does have a Wikipedia page, and it fairly describes the show as a “pseudo-documentary,” which Wolter would understandably disagree with. The America UnearthedWikipedia page, I learned, also links to my blog as the only example of “one blog site” that was “critical” of the show and its host. It links back to my piece on Scott Wolter’s non-existent honorary master’s degree, which explains why so many angry people have been arriving on that blog page to yell at me for “attacking” Wolter. I’d like to think I’m not the only person in the world to have written anything critical of the show. Doug Weller is a skeptic and rationalist who is an administrator for Wikipedia. Creationists, ancient astronaut speculators, and alternative historians have criticized him for editing Wikipedia entries to remove false or misleading claims. (See, for example, this discussion on the white supremacist Metapedia.) Even though these speculators have no degrees in the relevant fields, they feel Weller should not be allowed to edit material about their claims because he does not have a degree in archaeology or history. Thornton and several conservative websites accuse Weller of falsely claiming to have been an archaeologist, but I am not aware of this claim. It seems to be due to confusion about the fact that Weller runs an archaeology website. Thornton also accused the Cherokee of removing references to the Creek in Georgia in order to undermine Wolter’s (and, though he doesn’t say it, his) claim that the Maya gave rise to the Creek. The article claims this was part of a concerted effort on the part of the Cherokee to attack Scott Wolter and delegitimize America Unearthed. (Keep in mind that Examiner is not a real newspaper but a “citizen journalism” site with fewer quality control measures than Wikipedia.)

The extensive changes to Wikipedia were designed to give the impression that the Cherokees had always lived in Georgia. This was done because the Eastern Band of Cherokees planned to participate in an effort to discredit the premier [sic] of America Unearthed, “Finding the Mayas in Georgia.” [sic] It is not known who edited these articles. It could have been US Forest Service personnel, archaeologists, who are allied with the Cherokees, or members of one of several New Age cults that are obsessed with all things Cherokee.

Wolter has worked with the Cherokee in the past, and he examined the Bat Creek Stone at their request. He presented findings to the Cherokee and has continued to speak at Cherokee events. And lest you think this stuff doesn’t matter, remember: Glenn Beck advocated the Bat Creek Stone in 2010 as absolute proof of the truth of the Book of Mormon, based in part on Scott Wolter’s then-recent “analysis” of the geology of its alleged Hebrew inscription. Thornton also failed to disclose to his Examiner readers that he is the originator of the idea that the Maya were responsible for the Track Rock site in Georgia. Instead, he pretends to be a mere “columnist” reporting disinterestedly on the “scandal” at Wikipedia. Thornton is, of course, revealing volumes about his conspiratorial thinking. This is not the first time Thornton has accused the Cherokee and the Forest Service of a conspiracy against both Wolter, again failing to disclose his own role. In December, he wrote another lengthy Examiner column claiming that the Forest Service cut down trees to block Wolter from accessing the site and created their own online video to refute him. He linked the video to the KKK because the KKK linked back to it! He failed to note that the Forest Service was responding to Thornton’s own “theories,” which he published, again in Examiner, the previous year. “There has never been an explanation from this federal agency as to why it is so interested in proving that the Mayas did not come to North America,” Thornton wrote in December. It’s not a negative, Thornton: They’re trying to disseminate the known facts, as determined by actual archaeologists rather than angry conspiracy theorists, in order to inform the public of the truth. Thornton ironically and risibly accused Wikipedia of failure to disclose its conflicts of interest and bias against alternative views. He specifically accused Weller of monopolizing control over how issues affecting alternative history are presented and for not being an archaeologist. But I’m still not understanding: It’s OK for Richard Thornton and Scott Wolter, dilettante speculators both, to “rewrite” history based on coincidences, fabrications, and their own feelings, but the sacred job of editing Wikipedia must be reserved for credentialed professors? Given that actual archaeologists disagree with Thornton and Wolter (which is what the Forest Service wanted people to know), this seems like a ploy to avoid editing since few professionals have the time to review every Wikipedia page everyday for alternative history nonsense.

It is also probably the reason that Thornton airs his ideas on the unedited Examiner rather than anywhere where they might be exposed to critical thought.

UPDATEAfter some additional research, I learned some relevant information:

Doug Weller is an American citizen who lives in England, and he holds a degree from Yale. Thornton and Wolter are therefore wrong to imply he is British, not that this would be relevant anyway.

The two articles on Wikipedia that Thornton claimed were maliciously edited to remove references to the Creek at the time that America Unearthed premiered were not changed in the way Thornton claimed, according to the page histories the twoarticles.

Neither article was copied from the New Georgia Encyclopedia as Thornton claims, as a comparison to that work shows.

Here is the link to the discussion about deleting the Scott Wolter Wikipedia page. It makes clear that Wolter was upset that neutral viewpoint reporting gave the correct impression that his research was not supported by science: "I will not have my name or research questioned based on fraudulent research." (The fraud being Richard Nielsen's disagreement with him.)

A while back I caught some students plagiarizing from Wikipedia. So I did my own two experiments: I seeded some pages of topics we were discussing with interesting misinformation, and three of them used that in their papers.

But more interesting was when I made a fake account and added the term "Pro Bowler" to some famous people's pages (linked to the Pro Bowler's Association wiki page). I wanted to see how soon the misinformation would be corrected. I added "Pro Bowler" to Noam Chomsky, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Caine, and a few others. I know that last one I did was Martin Luther, about 20 minutes in, and then I received a notice that my additions weren't useful and if I persisted, I'd be banned. All my additions were reverted.

I thought 20 minutes wasn't bad, and I used that in the classroom to explain to my students if they were relying on Wikipedia, they had no idea if they were looking at a page during the 20 minute window within which some crackpot seeded the page with craziness.

The take-away was always check the sources of a Wikipedia page. If the links are dead, from blogs, or tend to link to each other, discard that source and look elsewhere for verification, or just discard that bit of info if it can't be verified. The other side of that -- where the bad info is interesting and useful -- is as a sociological data set, demonstrating a particular approach to knowledge production and the reasons behind it.

Not that any of that really relates to Wolter or Thornton, beyond the sociological aspect. It does suggest that if you're trying to participate in the production of knowledge, it's probably best not to do it in an echo chamber.

Reply

William Dashiell Hammett

3/27/2013 16:00:29

I like your experiments. I like wikipedia as a "good place to start" when doing research. I think a lot of wiki editors are really sincere in their efforts, myself included. But as anyone can make a change, you do need to dig deeper.

B L

3/27/2013 11:43:45

I remember running across the Scott Wolter entry on Wikipedia in the recent past. It WAS pretty unflattering.....not undeserved, just unflattering.

I wonder when it disappeared. When the show started in December, I remember trying to look up info on Wolter, about whom at the time I knew very little, and it wasn't there then. Mysterious!

Reply

The Other J.

3/27/2013 15:11:12

Wolter demanded that his Wikipedia page be taken down early into the run of America Unearthed. I don't recall if I found that Wikipedia discussion through here first, or if I found this site after stumbling across Wolter's take-down request, but there was a discussion and Wolter exclaimed he was tired of it all and just wanted the page gone. The request was honored.

B L

3/27/2013 16:05:30

I would take The Other J. at his word. I happened across it sometime last summer or fall while I was trying to find some info on the Kensington Runestone. It was a pretty strange entry. It was very short, and was written in the third person. It was like Wolter's worst enemy was forced to write something good about him. It wasn't derogatory or defamatory, but you could tell the writer was holding his nose during the process.

sean

2/13/2015 23:20:46

if you cant see thare is a clear plot to keep secrets about the land we live on you are not smart at all as a person that hikes I have seen things to question the so called real scholars that seem to know nothing as it seems thay don't even go look at the things out thare but discredit them from a far and I for one don't buy that as what a real scholar should do
really stop bashing scott he goes to check out the things the scholars don't seem to have even put a hand on

Jon B

3/27/2013 11:55:41

When AU first aired, I tried finding a Wikipedia page for Wolter. There was still a Google result at that time, but it just linked to a message about the page being removed. The Talk section mentioned Wolter asking that the page be removed. That certainly seems odd for someone with a TV show.

As it turns out, my quest to learn more about Wolter and AU led me here :)

That's what I found, too. It seems it was a preemptive strike to prevent bad press against the TV show. In that case, the only one in a conspiracy would be Wolter and/or H2 in trying to scrub the internet of uncomfortable facts.

Reply

Rlewis

3/27/2013 19:56:43

this link is still active...
http://wikipedias.com/index.php/Scott_F._Wolter

The Other J.

3/27/2013 15:12:29

I could have read this comment before I went ahead and posted basically the same damn thing... show's what happens when you spout off with incomplete information.

Of course I'm writing this before reading the other comments.

Reply

CFC

3/27/2013 12:18:08

Only people who lack the confidence in themselves and their facts behave this way. Their only defense mechanism is to attack those who challenge them or provide alternate explanations.

Reply

kirstein

7/6/2013 07:54:48

Ohh lalahhhh bingo!!!!

Reply

Carlos

2/6/2015 16:53:59

I realize this is old. Blame Netflix.....

I just couldn't let this stand. It's just wrong. People who are extremely confident in their facts may also act out. A lot depends on personality traits rather than the quality of their facts. People can also be confident of "facts" that are completely false and may or may not act out if challenged.

Isn't providing alternate explanations the proper way to have a discussion? Isn't that what leads to discovery? Every breakthrough starts out as an "alternate explanation". That is not to say that every alternate is a potential breakthrough, and I think that's where some folks get tripped up.

This comment is, in fact, an ad hominem "attack" since the writer makes their argument based on the notion that only someone who lacks confidence or has bad data will act n a certain way. The fact is human behavior is rarely as simple as whether or not the human in question has good data. If the statement were true, then the writer must surely lack confidence in the self and their "facts".... Since the "facts" in this regard (human behavior) are inaccurate, perhaps they are.

Reply

Cathleen Anderson

3/27/2013 12:43:37

You are not the only one being critical.

Here are a couple of examples.

http://shamangene.com/BLOG/?tag=america-unearthed

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2521978/reviews

I think you are the most organized about it though. And also the most prolific as far as writing about the series goes.

I just searched America Unearthed fake on google, There were lots of hits.

Reply

The Other J.

3/27/2013 15:16:16

Do you mean examples of faked evidence? Any particulars?

Reply

Cathleen Anderson

3/27/2013 16:25:35

No, examples of other people writing critically about the show.

Phillip

3/27/2013 14:08:11

If I was pretending to be the Indiana Jones of America, I would want my findings spread all across the pages of Wikipedia and every else for that matter, unless of course my findings were false and damaged further by "actual" evidence.....oh I get it now. No web presence, no criticism. Brilliant!

I too found this blog while searching for what Scott means when he says he is a forensic geologist. There is very little on Wiki.

I have decided to return from a short, self-imposed exile. There is yet hope here.

The Other J: "Evidence is not in the eye of the beholder; it's in the eye of the testing method."

Wiki anyone? Key in "Viking Altar Rock."

What do you see?

We see evidence in the eye of the beholder. But The Other J., you also are correct, and very astute, if you don't mind my opinion, for you moved the discussion forward with wisdom.

I also appreciate BL's capacity for seeing that I'm not a racist based on my reckoning. He also is wise, in my opinion, and good at following the dialogue with accuracy.

Did you see that close-up of the stonehole on Wiki's Viking Altar Rock page? I thought maybe you recognized it...for it none other than the now-semi-famous "Jason Calovito Stonehole." What is it doing there? I submitted a few photos to Wiki back in 2011.

What's funny is that I actually tried to get Wiki to change the name of the Rock, because of the preposterous association to a Viking Trail. Many times, possibly even in this blog, I've pointed out how the so-called experts are probably wrong about these stonehole's not being able to be dated.

But we want these tested, if possible, because evidence is also in the eye of the testing method. Right, and good. Perhaps there are other good testing methods, if the right forensic geologist is consulted.

The Viking Altar Rock has unusually large triangulated stoneholes chiseled into it. I have wonderful, rare photos of this MN rock on my website at

www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries

A large quantity of white chips are almost certainly in the soil a number of inches below the ground-line, and if you notice, the rock slopes wonderfully for the chips to have fallen onto the ground next to the rock.

Medieval? Maybe, maybe not. My own personal guess is that they were made in roughly the same time-frame as the Kensington Runestone, since the stone document was discovered surrounded by a dozen or more of these very real stonehole rocks.

So, anything once living, an acorn, a fish bone, etc., can probably be taken from the same level as the white rock chips...or even immediately below the chips, for a carbon dating sample...or a series of samples.

This is where "evidence is in the eye of the beholder " (literally looking at the aged stonehole) and a testing method may come together. Like a puzzle piece.

The problem with the Kensington Runestone Wiki entry is that the first sentence or two declares it to be a hoax. I addressed this problem a few months ago on my website, in a letter to the sleepy village of Alexandria. Wake up!

Of course, Wiki is a game, and it cannot be trusted. I don't blame Scott Wolter for removing his name.

I would like to eventually see that the Viking Altar Rock title is changed, like to the title I gave it on my website, for instance. I tried a few years ago and everything I said was bounced on down the road. I thought about removing my photos but decided to leave them up for general educational purposes.

I have been praying for the walking dead.

Mandans, anyone? Jason? What about the figurative use of "Blackfoot" to not describe human skin color?

Just messing with you...but in addition to now having your name honored by a very distinctive, aged, triangulated stonehole (obvious to the naked eye and perhaps testable), you are also now on my prayer list, along with Mr. Wolter.

Even though the fool says in his heart, "there is no God," there is yet hope for the walking dead, at least until they stop walking. Just my skeltered viewpoint. Christian viewpoints, or the lack thereof, have a way of sneaking in, trying to influence, don't they?

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/27/2013 21:56:01

Let me clarify this, "Mandans, anyone? Jason? What about the figurative use of "Blackfoot" to not describe human skin color?"

We had been talking about the weird report of black and white Mandans, which I didn't think made much sense, and so I made the comment about the figurative use of Blackfoot as an illustration.

So then, to clarify, I ask, why can't "black" be used figuratively, not necessarily to describe "exact" skin color, but to explain a sharp contrast to much lighter skin color? So there was no unworthy picking and choosing about mixing figurative with non-figurative. This is a way to explain the seemingly unexplainable, as an alternative to just scoffing. Peace again, Brother...please have another last word.

Reply

The Other J.

3/28/2013 01:31:23

Admittedly I haven't been following the stone holes debate very closely here; when I first came across it on these posts, the discussion was already pretty long and in-depth, and seemed like something I didn't have enough info on to jump into in medias res.

So -- just so I'm clear: Those holes resemble similar Viking mooring holes and are also located generally near where the KRS was found? And the claim is if the mooring holes could be proved as such, it would give legitimacy to the KRS?

About all I can say with regard to those holes (and I'm not an archaeologist) is yes, the triangular shape suggests chiseling. But from what I've read, any stone holes that were chiseled would have that shape, no matter who chiseled them. I'm actually from not too far from there on the Wisconsin side of the river (I spent a semester at St. John's), and at least in Wisconsin, there's quite a bit of evidence of Native American stone work (Rock Lake), but I'm not familiar with any mooring holes. I guess my questions would be:

Is there any other evidence that the mooring holes would be Viking beyond what they look like?

Is there any evidence of native tribes working stone in the region? (Because there is evidence of stone work on the east side of the Mississippi.)

Is there any trail of evidence of Norse people heading from the Great Lakes (which I'm assuming is the way they would get to the region) and down the state towards Comorant Lake? Grave goods, debris, tools, etc.? If these were Viking people and they kept their traditions, they would have buried their own with some quality grave bling.

And the big one: We already have the evidence of L'Anse aux Meadows and know that the Norse there would have interacted with the native tribes -- most likely Algonquin-speaking people, who migrated west in the 17th century and ended up in the Upper Midwest. Would it be possible that the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) picked up some customs (like mooring holes) from Vikings they encountered in the Atlantic coast centuries earlier, and brought those customs with them as they migrated to Minnesota? (Unless that's Sauk country, which is a different migratory route.) I've entertained the notion of some kind of cultural cross-pollination between the Anishinaabe and the Vikings, but mainly because some of their mythical creatures are similar -- pukwudgies have a lot in common with both trolls, pookahs and elves; you could imagine these two people meeting, recognizing that they have similar woodland spirits in their tradition, and fleshing out their own creature with a little bit from the other's tradition. (Pukwudgies even steal children, which is a trait of the faerie folk in the British Isles and Scandinavia, and carries over into alien abduction stories today.)

Personally, I'd probably be more persuaded by cultural cross-pollination as opposed to genetic; DNA can handle the genetics.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/28/2013 11:26:41

Well, I thought maybe there was hope here, The Other J., but you just dispelled that notion.

Why did you start out your comments by referring to these stoneholes as mooring stones?

Right now I feel like giving up, but I won't.

The Other J., the Kensington Runestone is separated by the end of the Viking Age by about 250 years.

You picked up the Viking/mooring stone image erroneously, even though I've gone to lengths to try to separate the two! Then you became immediately confused, because you thought I was trying to equate Vikings/mooring stones to my belief system.

What I'm saying is that similar stoneholes were made in medieval times in Northern Europe, yes, but I'm in no way saying I believe Vikings made the stoneholes here in MN, SD, etc., because of the time-frame.

In you are truly interested in these stoneholes, which are not mooring stoneholes, please refer to my website again, and the comments in this blog, and you will see that I have made every possible effort to separate the concept of mooring stones and Vikings from the Kensington Runestone.

I know this can be confusing. Basically, what happened is that for many years, some of the earliest stonehole enthusiasts became convinced that the stoneholes were for mooring Viking ships. They knew Scandinavians had been here because of all the collective "evidence," including the runestone, but most of the early pioneers didn't consider that the last glacial movement left the landscape about as it is now.

The water levels and landscape were about the same back in 1362 (the runestone date) as now, as any geologist can attest to. Certainly, there was not water levels to support Viking shipping! Plus, we know that the Native Americans from the late Woodland Period did not bury their deceased loved ones under water.

I actually am trying to base my conclusions on science, and on the scientific method. I am in a strange "in-between" spot in all this, because I believe in the authenticity of the KRS, yet I find myself having to constantly dispel other total nonsense, such as the idea that these stoneholes were used for mooring ships!

The local population up here are feeding into this myth, and I've been in a struggle up here to help people possibly see some logical truth-in-history, from my informed perspective. Do I have all the answers? Of course not, but I'm willing to keep plugging away, trying to find logical answers...like about the "many" blonde-haired Mandans, who may have derived from early Scandinavian explorers.

BL, you now stand alone. Astute one, help....

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/28/2013 13:59:52

Checking our Jason's Wiki bio, one can see that his "job" is to debunk what is referred to as alternative archaeology, and he has good credentials for doing this publicly, as a journalist or writer. This is a good niche to fill, and I see nothing wrong with this as a profession.

But, also, one can see why it is very important to someone like Jason not to break much from the traditional point of view, or to give in when it comes to admitting or overly-acknowledging "radical" new discoveries. In other words, there is a mind-set to be protected, as part of the job. In a way, Jason is a kind of gate-keeper here, which is okay because it is his domain and world and job.

This is why any consideration of Scandinavians in America as antecedent to Columbus is not allowed, or somewhat scoffed at, because that consideration is in his book, alternative archaeology.

My discussion of obviously aged, triangulated stoneholes can be seen as a threat to that preconceived mindset, which is actually a clue to a somewhat (purposely) closed mind.

Scott Wolter or anyone else who dares to consider a viewpoint not in line with the tradition viewpoint is an open target. Any and all so-called alternative history evidence must be completely done away with...such as the eye-witness accounts of Native Americans in ND with obvious white DNA.

I have presented a logical hypothesis for the possibility of Scandinavians coming into this region back in medieval times, as has Scott Wolter in his own way.

In my opinion, Wolter's views on some matters have clouded views on other matters, like the so-called holy bloodline clouding the importance of the hooked x as a symbol on the KRS. To me as a Christian, it's like mixing nonsense with something credible.

I still think he did a good job of linking many hooked-x sources together. The hooked x still appears to me to be a likely crossover symbol linking the Templars and Masons. Why is the Kensington Runestone covered with hooked x runes, and why was it surrounded by a dozen stonehole rocks?

The Runestone is authentic, and the many, many obviously aged stoneholes spread around this region are real, so what is the explanation? I think Jason would prefer that these things did not exist, nor the Mandans, either...along with La Verendye's eyewitness account of "many" Native Americans with blonde hair.

Jason, I'm thinking that maybe you can allow that Pandora's Box of alternative archaeology to crack open just a bit. Look in there...get that Christopher Columbus nose in there: don't you see that the black Mandans didn't have actual black skin any more than the Blackfoot had black feet? Now, the black and white Mandans surely didn't look like Zebras, right, if we can move along to the Three Stooges:

"I'll take the red-red."

"I'll take the blonde."

Curly: "I'll take the black and tan! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck."

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/28/2013 14:06:46

Sorry..."red-head."

DMC

5/1/2013 22:53:47

Here here! History is what someone wrote down! Doesn't always mean it is accurate! I'm sure when God flooded the earth there were many artifacts that were lost! The bible states that there is nothing new under the sun! Why is it such a stretch to believe there was another culture before the Indians?

The Other J.

3/29/2013 19:14:56

Well like I said, I wasn't dipping into the stone hole conversation before, and just tried to get some base familiarity with before I said anything (from your one page and I did some other searching as well, including a cursory look at one scholarly article).

But I'm not sure how that changes my original questions. On the most basic level, why would any European settlers leave only the faintest, tracest amount of archaeological evidence (a rune stone and holes in stone), and none other that isn't at the very least easily challenged (like fair-haired natives).

I'm not an archaeologist, but some archaeology was part of my graduate work in Ireland. The short of it is: Whether you're talking Vikings or Celts, they left trash all over the place everywhere they lived. Burnt food remains, debris, nut shells, hunting implements, fishing tools, grooming gear, grave goods, etc. There are trails of that kind of material everywhere they went in Europe, including Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland. But you're asking us to suspend disbelief and accept that any such trail goes cold as some European explorers went half-way across a continent, and accept some distant accounts and sketchy evidence as proof of an event for which no other supporting evidence exists -- yet that sort of supporting evidence exists in every other place those cultures ever were at.

So it's less about what the holes are for, and more about the suspension of disbelief involved. Now don't get me wrong -- this isn't an attack on your or your beliefs, you're welcome to them. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that evidence has to be able to stand up to any plausible challenge. When I get the chance I'll look more into the stone hole question, but as it stands, I'm not even convinced on the fair hair/skin native debate, since that can be easily answered through means other than European influence. (And as I said elsewhere, I don't even believe the original claim about Welsh Indians was about white Indians, since those original claims were relating how the dark Celts of Wales and Ireland bore some superficial resemblance to the Native Americans. This was at a time when such Celts were put on display in zoos alongside Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans as examples of exotic subhumans, which makes it even more unlikely that they'd be used to establish some kind of European priority in the new world.)

Reply

J.J.

3/28/2013 21:10:09

Gunn and other J- there is a published article (1985) telling of making holes to blast on the Ohman farm. Landsverk also had a letter from Art Ohman telling of blasting rock on the farm. Now, how do you discern if this or that holed stone is old? We are doing scope work on the holes to see what type of weathering presents itself. The next question to take into consideration is water standing in the holes- does this hasten to any extent the weathered 'look'. Just to look at the holed stones and deem them ancient will not result in reliable data. We have stories for over 100 years- well and good- but it has not answered the question. My study area, not around Kensington, has garnered over 70 such stone holes. Will 71 answer it, will 75 answer it? It needs to be looked at from a more scientific attitude.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/28/2013 22:52:00

I agree with you, J.J. The stoneholes need to be looked at from a more scientific attitude than they are now. They have stories to tell, right? Exactly. The problem is that not enough people are taking these stoneholes seriously, seriously enough for further study. I'm glad to hear that someone is trying to age-test some of these triangulated stoneholes.

As you can see above, I've suggested another way of possible scientific testing, using carbon dating of materials adjacent to buried rock chips. Of course this wouldn't work for some smaller holes, but a good specimen to try on would be the so-called Viking Altar Rock, also mentioned above. Maybe I can move this idea forward with the State Archaeologist, but I doubt it since, like Jason, he must believe in no pre-17th century European activity in America, especially out in the middle of nowhere...sorry...out in the middle of nowhere for that time!

I guess this information you provided about Art Ohman just goes to show that some holes somewhere on the farm were used for blasting. But of course we both know that most of these "unblasted" holes found in this region were not for blasting, because, as in your aforementioned case of the deeply carved Scandinavian drinking horn, this obviously-aged carving is accompanied by...stonehole rocks, right? Or at least I know some of the carvings are, as in the case of the owl head carving in Wilmot.

And I recall for everyone that the Kensington Runestone itself is surrounded by at least a dozen still-unblasted stoneholes. Were these stoneholes meant for blasting? Probably not, based on the clues from these other sites...including the stoneholes and carvings associated with one another on land from Milbank to Corona to Wilmot, an immense walking area, by the way.

I think there may be a chemical-analysis study that can be done on the degradation of these stoneholes, also, by a highly trained geologist, that could probably go beyond or at least add to the scope work you're referring to.

But I get your point, which is to say that these stonehole rocks deserve more scrutiny. We know they are not an accident rained down from the sky, for example.

In my opinion, some of the "good" work Scott Wolter did for The Hooked X book was gathering together information and photos of much of the material we are now talking about. I have tried my best to show that these stoneholes weren't for mooring Viking ships, based on science.

I tend to place most of the stoneholes into the Kensington Runestone time-frame, but who knows, maybe they were made 50, 100, 200 or more years earlier. Maybe the ones in SD, near you, were made by Scandinavians who found it convenient to become part of a medieval-era Mandan Tribe. Maybe not, too, as Jason here has supposed. But it's fun to speculate, and of no harm.

Keep up the good work. Peace, Sister.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/28/2013 22:59:49

"Maybe I can move this idea forward with the State Archaeologist, but I doubt it since, like Jason, he must believe in no pre-17th century European activity in America, especially out in the middle of nowhere...sorry...out in the middle of nowhere for that time!"

I know I have to quickly change this to "...no pre-16th century European Activity in America..." before Jason catches it!

B L

3/28/2013 23:58:45

Hi J. J. I am also interested in the stone holes. I am aware of the 1985 article you mention. On its surface, this article would seem to make the mystery of the stone holes on the Ohman property an open and shut case. However, even that simple article has stirred up some controversy. Sometime after Art Ohman died a researched attempted to validate the claim made in the article. The researcher asked representatives at Ohman's nursing home if he had ever been interviewed during his stay there. The nursing home claimed that they were under strict orders to keep such people away from Ohman, and that family members didn't want Ohman's golden years to be tormented by Kensington Runestone fanatics. So, it is possible that the interview never happened, and that the claim was made up by the article's author.

The other problem I have about the supposed claims of Art Ohman? Years ago Hjalmar Holland tried to authenticate the Kensington Stone. He wrote prolifically about it. In one of his books he makes a big deal associating the stone holes with Viking and Norse mooring holes. Holland's theories were all the rage and were very popular at the time in Minnesota. If Ohman chiseled the holes himself, why wouldn't he have spoken up when Holland's theories were first gaining traction?

Reply

CFC

3/29/2013 01:12:49

Who is the "researcher" that is casting doubt on the integrity of the journalist who authored the article you mention? This interview conducted with individuals at the nursing home... where is this researcher's interview published?

The documentation that exists about the these holes at the discovery site in Kensington is the report published by the Minnesota Historical Society team that was posted elsewhere on this blog by Jason and this article that is written by a journalist that corroborates the conclusion that these holes are blasting holes.
The published article by the MHS team is peer-reviewed. The triangulation theory that Scott Wolter writes about in his self-published book about the location of these holes is not.

If there is an interest in conducting some analysis on various holes then by all means, do a study and publish it.

Personally, I find this discussion and these ongoing posts about the holes to be repetitive and redundant. I hope the discussion about these holes is taken elsewhere by those wishing to pursue it further.

Reply

B L

3/29/2013 08:06:38

CFC: You seem to have a lot of questions for someone so disinterested in this stone hole conversation. I'm not sure what Scott Wolter has to do with my comments. I'm certainly not a big fan of his. I am aware of at least one group in the field right now in the process of analyzing these holes. I eagerly await their results. I have no preconceived notion regarding these holes. As I have stated before, my personal experience keeps me from believing that ALL of these holes were intended for blasting.

I certainly welcome you to completely ignore further posts on this subject as it is repetitive and redundant.

Your comment about the unquestionable integrity of journalists will make me smile all day. If there is one thing we all can agree on it is that all journalists are beyond reproach.

Reply

CFC

3/29/2013 09:01:16

I'm interested in facts and published reports not gossip, heresay and accusations. It's irresponsible to make the comments about the researcher's interview that question the journalist's story without providing documentation. If there is a reference you can provide to this interview, that would be appreciated.

When and if a scientific report is available that will be interesting and worthwhile.

Until then, I'll re-read Jason's excellent reviews.

Reply

B L

3/29/2013 09:32:42

I wonder which is more irresponsible...asking questions to prompt further investigation and possible discovery, or lumping everyone you find disagreeable in with Scott Wolter?

You may find this shocking, but I'm sure there are a few out there who glaze over when forced to trip across your posts. By your own standards or redundancy and repetitiveness maybe you should consider posting somewhere else. I'm sure Jason appreciates your policing his site for him, but I bet he could carry on just fine without either of us.

Happy Easter.

Reply

J.J

3/29/2013 10:36:23

CFC - I appreciate your thoughts. My comments as to our testing is to encourage people that some of us ARE out there starting to do what hopefully will be perceived as science to help with dating these stoneholes. If all people do is read the old stories, old negative material that put everything down- nothing is done to inspire or encourage people to expand their minds to the possiblities of such a procedure. It may even show some promise for other so called 'artifacts'. It is easy to read people who have the baby already thrown out with the dishwater.

Gunn Sinclair

3/29/2013 11:12:02

J.J., I don't think the Art Ohman reference was helpful...kind of sounded like old, negative material to me. Thanks for clearing that up for me, BL.

I was emailing with a Cree Native American, who gave me this mind-blowing reference, which may clear up a lot about prospective stonehole dating...or not. Apparently, some methods may work, such as chemical testing, others may not be so useful in determining weathering.

But even more important, after wading through this immensely powerful, scientific document, I came to realize that the Hooked X is mostly a symbol for Christ...not as Wolter suggests, a symbol for a Christ-bloodline. Wow, what a difference? I suggested before that perhaps Scott was in trouble with God. What do you think?

Jason, I think this may entail a fresh look at everything...right? A new blog heading for discussion, right? I believe we are all making progress....

Reply

J.J.

3/29/2013 11:36:37

Gunn- then you did get the point- all of these stories are just that- the person writing it's opinion or slant. This will not answer the questions concerning the validity of the holes themselves. CFC wants peer reviewed journal material stuck away in places the average person will not have access- no win?

Reply

B L

3/29/2013 12:23:39

Gunn, J.J., and CFC:

There are two separate issues here as I see it.

1) Gunn, you are never going to gain traction on your Norse hypothesis here in this forum. The reason? You have pieced together a whole narrative of pre-Columbian Norse exploration of Minnesota and the surrounding area. And, you've built this idea on several unauthenticated artifacts and pieces of anecdotal evidence. I can see how you've done it, and I don't fault you for your interim conclusions. But, the problem is that if one of your evidentiary pieces is found to be faulty, then your whole narrative becomes very questionable. Instead of pushing the narrative of the Norse, take each piece of evidence by itself (the stone holes, the KRS, the altar rock, the horn and knife), and prove or disprove each one. After each piece of evidence is evaluated by scientific procedure, then regroup and see what you are left with and what overall idea the evidence leads to. In the end, you may be right, but you need to be prepared to change your ideas in case you are wrong.

2) My part in this started when I admitted that I thought the idea that each and every one of these holes was intended to be blasted does not make sense to me. And, I would like to see further research done on the subject. If it turns out that all of the holes were meant to be blasted, then fine. If it turns out that some were to be blasted, some were chiseled by Native Americans or Norse explorers, and still others were created by a modern group of Boy Scouts, then that would be fine too. I just want more information. And, for the life of me I do not understand why my curiosity on this subject spurs so many to such disdain that people go out of their way to type nasty responses. If you're not interested in what interests me, then ignore my posts. I won't be offended.

CFC

3/29/2013 12:31:51

If you want to be taken seriously, I would suggest approaching this in a manner that supports the scientific method.

The peer-reviewed article that was published by the MHS team is not "stuck away'. It has however been ignored by those who don't like the conclusions.

Regarding repetitiveness and redundancy- I just get tired of seeing the same things said over and over again. Maybe others like that - I do not.

I'm all for encouraging investigations done properly. Good luck with yours!

Reply

CFC

3/29/2013 12:40:49

I don't think asking for you to produce the evidence where you claim a researcher conducted an interview as negative. It's asking you to back up the claim. Can you do that?

I think my comments would be helpful to someone who was curious about a topic but wanted to seek input on how to approach it correctly.

Good luck to you.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/29/2013 14:27:42

Well, actually, there is a lot known about these stoneholes. They are mysterious, but not a complete mystery.

I admit that my training in Criminal justice has me looking at the preponderance of evidence, rather than focusing too much on just one object. My view is that there is an amazing amount of this so-called Nordic "evidence" in this SD/MN area. Taken together, it means something. Again, just because these items don't have acceptable provenance doesn't mean necessarily that they are fake, or unworthy. We're not just talking about a few unrelated items, we're talking about hundreds of unblasted stones holes, often associated with other Nordic "evidences," plus all the other iron weapons from the medieval period and the KRS itself.

Rather than completely ignoring and disregarding this accumulated "evidence," I'm trying to process it to make the best sense of it in my own mind. Of course, my main focus is the KRS, which I wholeheartedly believe is authentic...again, based on the preponderance of evidence in my mind.

I believe the validity of the stoneholes as originating from Scandinavians is self-evident, when taken side-by-side with other evidences which relates to the same probable origin. To me, this is a logical explanation. Like a good egg-gatherer, I have tried to put all the eggs into one basket, that is true. Will all the eggs break if I stumble, or will none break...or perhaps one or two break? I will try my best not to let them all break at once, hence my peck-peck-pecking away here.

If these eggs are fertile, what can we expect? J.J., you are right...talk is talk. What can we find out for sure? I get these points, and that everyone has an opinion. The value of blogs like this is that opinions sometimes do matter. Anything truthful that can help validate the stoneholes matters. Any present or future scientific assessments of these stoneholes matters. In the meantime, we can still try to figure them out as best we can.

BL, the reason for the mean and nasty responses if simple: some visiting here think they should automatically take Jason's view that anything not nailed down by facts is not true and to be scoffed at. In essence, they are spouting the party line and scoffing at any speculation that doesn't fit into the mold.

Thanks BL for attempting to wrap this up to make better sense. One of the things we know about the stoneholes is that they most likely weren't make by Native Americas, since they didn't use iron chisels that we know of...depending on the time-frame, of course. I have to be careful, because someone will come on here and say that maybe a 19th Century Native American farmer could have been intent on blasting some pesky rocks on his land. And of course, someone else like T would come along and masterfully twist it around to being a racist notion in the first place.

Anyway, the total preponderance of evidence isn't a total figment of my imagination. My views, unfortunately for some here, make darn good sense. Yes, my view is a threat to the Jasonic "established" viewpoint...but just because it is a threat doesn't mean it isn't possible, so I will continue to have hope and faith that eventually something with acceptable provenance will show up to either blow my hypothesis away, or else to seal the deal.

The deal? That some of these things spoken of are real, and that good ole Whitey showed up in the middle of America back in medieval times. (This should set some people off.)

As you have a website, Gunn, and an abiding interest in these stone holes, I think it would be appropriate at this point for you and those interested in continuing this discussion to move over to your website to discuss stone holes.

At this point, this discussion is just going around in circles and doesn't really have much to do with the blog posts to which it has become attached.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/29/2013 14:41:33

That last one stung a bit, didn't it?

Life is a circle. - Black Elk

The conversation had been making progress until you came to put your Italian Christopher Columbus nose in it.

I'm going to generously assume it didn't cross your mind that I'm half Italian and you were referecing that in terms of establishment thinking only.

If the conversation has been making progress, I assume it will go all the better when presented somewhere other than a blog post about Wikipedia and the Maya in Georgia.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

3/29/2013 15:09:38

The discussion was about Wiki, too, for which I had added in my two-bits with my own experience with Wiki, referencing both the Kensington Runestone and the now famous "Jason Calovito Stonehole" rock. I'm sorry the Maya and Georgia got in my way.

Sorry, but the only part of your DNA I had considered in my humorous comment, above, was your obvious Colavito side.

Well, anyway, I think the conversation was about shot, too, even though new insights and information was being considered. I have a strange feeling that you haven't heard the end of these stoneholes, but I won't bring them up again here, unless you begin a blog entitled "Life is a Stonehole Circle." That'll be my cue.

Reply

Mangoe

3/29/2013 15:47:32

As one of the participants in the editing of these articles on Wikipedia, I would only like to add that for me the message is how any amateur with a fairly basic idea of how scholarship and archaeology are done can see the problems with these artifacts. It's striking, for example, how may of them involve isolated inscriptions in odd alphabets on stones of dubious provenance and lacking any kind of archaeological context. The comparison with L'Anse aux Meadows is instructive.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/30/2013 17:52:10

There is now a very brief "Wikipedia" article on "Scott Wolter" ...

Reply

Junk Science Skeptic

5/2/2013 03:34:37

Wolter's show seems a bit iffy, but it seems as though he only walks right up to the edge of asserting his points. He implies all day long, but assertions are few and far between.

The whole concept of peer review was pretty well debunked by the whole climategate scandal. Gullible people treat "scientists" as the new priests, when in reality much of science is conducted by people acting like bitchy squabbling kids.

50 years ago, "scientists" scoffed at plate tectonics, now it's accepted as fact. And let's not even get started on the credibility of the whole global cooling/warming/change/cooling . . . "science."

Is Wolter peddling a lot of hokum? Almost certainly. But to assign much more credibility to so-called "settled science" is equally questionable. If Wolter does nothing more than to get people to doubt the status quo, he will have done more for science then most of its current practitioners.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

5/8/2013 23:56:43

Ummmm ... I'm not aware that ANY of Scott Wolter's work is anything about "climate gate" ...
So ... ???

Reply

Junk Science Skeptic

5/9/2013 00:41:13

Really tangential to the Wolter discussion, but earlier comments cite "peer review" as if it still deserved the status of a "papal edict" that such review once held. Not that peer review ever deserved such status.

The climategate scandal pretty much debunked the entire concept of modern peer review. "Pal review" would be a more accurate term in today's grant-driven science.

"Doug Weller is a skeptic and rationalist....they feel Weller should not be allowed to edit material about their claims because he does not have a degree in archaeology or history." - well, what gives him grounds to edit anything on these topics then? Or any topic where he is not well versed and educated? Then again...it is wikipedia.... no exactly reliable.

"Keep in mind that Examiner is not a real newspaper but a “citizen journalism” site..." - A little pot-kettle there, eh?

"They’re trying to disseminate the known facts, as determined by actual archaeologists rather than angry conspiracy theorists, in order to inform the public of the truth." - So... it's 100% that the Mayans did NOT make it to the SE U.S. Absolutely 100%, no doubt, not one Mayan (or descendant)? I'm still (as you say) skeptical. Do I have that right?

Sorry, but this blog is just loaded with the same nonsense that it is tearing (AU, Wolter and anyone associated with the show) apart over.

On the positive side - you don't delete comments, so I'll give you credit for that. Not typical of know-it-all type blogs.

Beck mattered because he was advocating the authenticity of the Bat Creek Stone to an audience five times the size of America Unearthed's. The other figures you metnion are not relevant because they were not advocating alternative archaeology.

The quotation about "known facts" is a specific rejoinder to Thornton on the goal of the U.S. Forest Service. It in no way precludes you from believing whatever your heart desires; it merely suggests that government agencies ought not to be spreading lies.

If you bothered to read my other writings on the Maya, you'd see that archaeologists have been working for more than a century to find a Mesoamerican connection to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex but have found only one piece of physical evidence, a Mexican stone tool found in Oklahoma. No other evidence exists despite a century or more of looking for it.

Reply

steve

5/7/2013 08:07:33

Bwahahaha!!! I love the self-serving plug there, Jason. You and I both know you edited the AMERICA UNEARTHED page to add yourself. What a tool.

I have never touched the America Unearthed page, and you are welcome to view the page history on Wikipedia to confirm this fact. My edits to Wikipedia (few that they are) are tagged with my name in the page histories of the relevant pages, such as the page for the Orphic Argonautica.

Reply

Cora Kelly

7/22/2013 13:39:33

I am the youngest daughter of Dr. A.R. Kelly. Recently my family has become aware of the writings of Richard Thorton. Anyone claiming experise in a topic needs to check every possible fact before printing it. I studied chemistry much to my father's distress. He wanted me to follow in his BIG footsteps. This at this point is just my unprofessional opinion.

Reply

Veronica Brown

11/28/2013 11:08:23

I have ancestry in northeast Alabama and western Georgia, smack dab in the middle of what was once Creek territory. As far as I knew, my ancestry was 100% northern European, with one branch deemed 'Old Colonial'. I had my genome run, put the raw data thru Gedmatch, and was surprised to discover that I have a small percentage of Mesoamerican DNA, from an area around Peru, and also Mexico. My great grandmother's maiden name happens to be Thornton. At the time I had my DNA run, I had NO idea who Richard Thornton was. I don't believe we are related, nor, that the Mesoamerican genes come from my Thornton line. I still don't know what to think. Coincidence I guess? To make this even more intriguing, we settled on the edge of a northern Mississippi Mound Building site in the north, before we knew any of this. I now take an interest in the archeology digs that are done yearly. It just feels a lot more personal now. Maybe it is worth looking at the genetics of southern old colonials and the Creeks, before casting off any theories? Just sayin......

Reply

Bruce David Wilner

6/27/2014 15:36:58

Scott Wolter is not much of a scientist. He jumps to conclusions based on the flimsiest of evidence. He knows next to nothing about archaeology, history, or linguistics but flaps his lips, regularly and generously, about all of these. He rushes to identify the sketchiest of petroglyphs--whether square or circular--as hard evidence of such-and-such relationship. He identifies random linear scratches here and there as Old Irish ogham and, consequently, clear evidence that Irish sailors visited site X fifteen hundred years ago. His theories about the "hooked X" and such are beneath contempt. He should stick to his own expertise, to wit, geology, and I question his expertise at that, although I'm not a geologist. Generally speaking, he should be ashamed of himself.

Reply

Cory

1/4/2015 12:03:03

Here is a link to the Wikipedia editors discussion about why they deleted Wolter's page. Basically, they deemed him not scientific or reliable enough to deem being on the site so they honored his delete request.

The writer implies there was no Scott Wolter wiki page, when there absolutely was. The writer is a liar with an agenda. Scott Wolter is just looking at things from a different angle. Funny that he gets so much opposition, ey?

Reply

Michael Grace

2/8/2015 13:45:01

Have been reading some of your material and thought I'd just pass on an ATTABOY to you.
cheers,
mgg

I have read all these criticisms of Scott Wolter and Richard Thornton. I have yet to hear any of the critics give an explanation of where the formations came from. Fact the Maya just seemed to walk off the face of the earth around the year 1000. Where did they go? Who do you critics say built those formations if not the Maya. They carbondate them back to around the year 1000 and they have evidence of the Maya written all over them. I applaud Scott Wolter for doing this research. And furthermore, what is a degree? Its a piece of paper that entitles someone to sit at a desk and decree what is truth of the matter. Scott Wolter is a hands on and in my book, he has a degree from life experiences. I applaud him and wish the show still aired. I was born deep in the heart of those mountains, 3 miles from the closest neighbor, six miles to the tiny country store and 18 miles from town. I am part Cherokee on my mother's side and a small part Creek Indian on my father's side. I believe the Maya built that and other sites in Florida and Georgia. I believe the Maya did become known as the Creek Indians. Scott if you ever read this ......My hat is off to you. I am a 77 year old woman and I hold no degree other than a high school diploma, but.......I hold three quarters of a century of life experiences. Nobody can take that from me. Scott Wolter has the experiences of hands on, visiting, touching, researching. Who are you people to sit in you homes or offices and write criticisms about what He goes out and touches and researches. All of you get your information from reading books. He gets his from hands on research and nobody can refute that. ........My hat is off to you Scott, and to Richard Thornton also.
RUTH WORLEY - Ringgold, Georgia

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.